A VERY good sized list indeed! Here is one excerpt that contains an interesting phrase:
"500. Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520 (1959).

Illinois statute which requires trucks and trailers operating on state highways to be equipped with specified type of rear fender mud-guard, which is different from those permitted in at least 45 other States, and which would seriously interfere with "interline operations" of motor carriers cannot validly be applied to interstate motor carriers certified by the Interstate Commerce Commission, for the reason that interstate commerce is unreasonably burdened thereby."

One wonders whether much of the gun ban style legislation should be set aside "for the reason that RKBA is unreasonably burdened thereby"...

Glad you like

And no. Interstate commerce is regulated by the federal government. Firearms are not regulated by anyone per the Second Amendment itself.

I love that list...SSSOOOOOO much info!!!

__________________
“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

And no. Interstate commerce is regulated by the federal government. Firearms are not regulated by anyone per the Second Amendment itself.

I love that list...SSSOOOOOO much info!!!

Wow. How I wish that was true. The Federal government and most of the States regulate firearms. Automatic weapons, magazines over a certain size, calibers over a certain size, places where you can carry, wait times for delivery, ... Need I go on?

2A calls for "A well-regulated militia...". Some regulation does make sense. Convicted felons, adjudicated incompetents, people whose judgment is impaired by necessary medication, perhaps non-citizens (though that probably deserves some debate) should be prevented by regulation from keeping and bearing arms. I could envision some level of competency / proficiency testing associated with licensing. The underlying principle would be the protection of the general public from incompetent or evil usage.

But the level of restriction we have today, in my opinion, far exceeds the original intent of 2A and far exceeds any reasonable concern about protection of the general public.

What we are seeing is the foreplay of a large political fornication. By defying the federal government the states are stating their displeasure of the actions of the federal government. It is setting the stage for secession. Our wannabe dictator has polarized the nation as never before. With legalization of undocumented democrats the balance will tip further to the left and that will not be acceptable to a lot of state governments.

__________________
Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
I was taught to respect my elders but they are getting harder to find.

Wow. How I wish that was true. The Federal government and most of the States regulate firearms. Automatic weapons, magazines over a certain size, calibers over a certain size, places where you can carry, wait times for delivery, ... Need I go on?

2A calls for "A well-regulated militia...". Some regulation does make sense. Convicted felons, adjudicated incompetents, people whose judgment is impaired by necessary medication, perhaps non-citizens (though that probably deserves some debate) should be prevented by regulation from keeping and bearing arms. I could envision some level of competency / proficiency testing associated with licensing. The underlying principle would be the protection of the general public from incompetent or evil usage.

But the level of restriction we have today, in my opinion, far exceeds the original intent of 2A and far exceeds any reasonable concern about protection of the general public.

The "thing" in the 2A to be regulated was the millitia. In addition, regulated then is not the same as today or so many historians have said. I have a argument for some felons being denied their 2A right, but this is not the place for that (feel free to PM me if your interested).

FWIW, every gun ban/registration has been under the guise of promoting public safety. Ask the people living in Germany in the 30's and 40's how that worked out

__________________
“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

constitutionally?? no. the states do not have the right to violate any of the ammendments. or any of the constitution itself. the US constitution applies to the states in the exact same manner it applies to the federal government.

but in practice the states violate it and act in extremely unconstitutional roles more than the feds do.

__________________
"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

I agree, BigByrd. Hell, ask the people in the school at Sandy Hook how well the gun free zone regulations worked for them.

//rant on//
John Lott's studies show very clearly that every state that newly adopts a "shall issue" concealed carry permitting system has seen significant reductions in violent crime. Not "many", not "most", EVERY time there are reductions in violent crime. Similarly, every time there have been dramatic reductions in LAC access to guns (England, Australia, Mexico, ...) violent crime has risen.

None of the gun tragedies that spark the demand for further restrictions have been committed by a mentally competent LAC. None of the guns involved in those tragedies fired itself. Every one (with the possible exception of the attempted assassination of the Arizona congresswoman) was committed by a known-to-be-imbalanced person in a gun free zone.

We don't need to restrict the guns. We don't need to restrict the LACs. We need to restrict the individuals who are known to be imbalanced and we need to ELIMINATE gun free zones.

The feds had nothing to do with New York passing the laws they just passed. The State of New York did this on their own without any influence from the feds. Any state can pass laws for that state if they get the votes. The two are not the same. Fed laws are for all and state laws are for each state, it is that simple.

Do you think the 'Jim Crow' laws were right and legal just because the 'state' passed them?????

__________________
An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!